Docoslgo Eo,elope 10, 1BOFC047-E4BA C-R
'P
'H
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Respons1bil1ty
COMMUNICATION 795/22
Liberty Fighters Network and Reyno
Dawid de Beer (represented by Reyno
Dawid de Beer)
The Re~ublic of South Africa
Adopted by the
African Co,,.,,.ission on Human and Peoples• Rights
During the 84'1' Ordinary Session held virtually from 21 to 30 July 2025,
...
.........
...........
Hon.
Chai
on Hu
Sow
n Commission
I
Rights
M~Ab
Execu
Comm/
Rights
M Qgan d Ire
African (
Union
~-~
~:
. E El 0
The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombe North District, West Coast Region
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africanunion.org
https:/achpr.a u .int/O o a
cr~r., ACHPR
·
I African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Decision of the African Commission on Human and
Peoples' Rights on Strike Out
Communication 795/22 - Liberty Fighters Network
and Reyno Dawid de Beer (represented by Reyno
Dawid de Beer) v. The Republic of South Africa
Summary of facts
1. The Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the
Secretariat) received a Communication on 6 October 2021, submitted by the
Liberty Fighters Network and Reyno Dawid de Beer (the Complainants).
2. The Complaint was lodged against the Republic of South Africa (hereinafter
referred to as the Respondent State), a State that became party to the African
Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the African Charter) on 9 July 1996.
3. The First Complainant is Liberty Fighters Network, a common law voluntary
association, functioning as a non-governmental organisation registered in terms of
the laws of the Respondent State, and the Second Complainant is an adult male
citizen of the Respondent State. The Second Complainant is also the legal
representative of the association.
4. According to the Complainants, on 15 March 2020, the Minister of Cooperative
Governance and Traditional Affairs, Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, declared a
national state of disaster after the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, in terms
of Section 27 of the Disaster Management Act, 2002.
5. The Complainants state that on 18 March 2020, the same Minister promulgated
the Disaster Management Act Regulations (hereinafter called the Regulations)
specific to the pandemic.
6. However, the Complainants allege that the Regulations
threshold, resulting in grave human rights violations.
c;··r, ACHPR
•
I African Commission on
Human and Peoples' flights
Hurnan Rights our
Collective Responsibility
7. The Complainants also allege the following violations: the restriction of the freedom
of movement; invasion of privacy; coercing people to get vaccinated for COVID-19
or getting tested for it, including coercing employees to undergo forced
vaccinations under false pretences; arrest and criminal prosecution of people for
violating the Regulations; encroaching on the human rights of children , women and
the elderly; interference with practising relig ion and other faiths; prevention of
participation in protests and gatherings; disrupted access to the courts and other
tribunals resulting in a lack of access to justice; discrimination against peoples'
freedom of expression and opinion ; economic abuse resulting in a loss of income
and employment to millions of people and the prohibition of tobacco and alcohol
resulting in psychological abuse of addicts without proper medical supervision.
8. The Complainants aver that they challenged the declaration of the national state
of disaster in the Respondent State's courts. The Complainants also aver that there
are five court challenges emanating from this.
9. The Complainants allege that the Respondent State continued applying the
Disaster Management Act Regulations despite obtaining an order declaring them
unconstitutional from the High Court, Gauteng Division in Pretoria on 2 June 2020 .
10. Additionally, the Complainants allege a series of improprieties by the courts
emanating from the dismissal of some of their applications before the Constitutional
Court.
Alleged violations
11. The Complainants allege the violation of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 19,
20 , 22 , 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the African Charter.
Prayers
12. The Complainants request the Commission to find a violation of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 19, 20 , 22 , 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the African Charter.
Procedure
13. The Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peopl
African Commission) rece ived the Complaint on 6 Octob
acknowledged its rece ipt through a letter dated 27 June 2022.
.
·~ - - . c
'«-;,
\\
- ;;:}
,.,
~
I
9.- I
StON A•RICI>-\ <:,q'<-~
OMME £1 O<,;;
·= ---·
(,c••r, ACH PR
••
,.
c:n :a:ni" .•
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' nights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
14. The Complaint was seized on 9 August 2022 as it fulfilled all the requirements of
Rule 115( 1) of the Rules of Procedure of the African Commission on Human and
Peoples' Rights (ROP 2020), and the Secretariat also requested submissions on
admissibility and merits from the Complainants.
15. On 1 November 2022 , the Complainants wrote a letter to the Secretariat requesting
an extension of time to file submissions on admissibility and merits by 13
December 2022 in terms of Rule 98 of ROP 2020.
16. By way of a letter dated 17 November 2022 , the Secretariat granted the
Complainants an extension of time to file its submissions on admissibility.
17. On 13 December 2022, the Complainants wrote a letter to the Secretariat,
requesting the latter to suspend the Complaint as they had not exhausted local
remedies and an opportunity to do so had arisen in the Constitutional Court of
South Africa .
18. Regrettably, there has not been any communication or feedback from the
Complainants since their last communication two years and seven months ago.
Analysis of the African Commission on Strike Out
19. Rule 124(2) of ROP 2020 provides that where a Complainant fails to pursue their
Communication or show proper due diligence in prosecuting it, the Commission
may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike it out.
20. Additionally, Rule 98 states that either party may apply to the Commission for an
extension of the period stipulated for a particular submission, prior to its expiry.
21 . In the present Communication, the Commission notes that after the Complaint was
seized , the Complainants were invited to present their Arguments and Evidence on
the Admissibility and Merits of the Communication within sixty (60) days of receipt
of the notification.
22 . The Commission further notes that the Complainants did not present their
Arguments and Evidence on Admissibility and Merits within the sixty (60) days'
notice. The Commission also notes that the Complainants requested an extension
of time , which was granted.
23. However, the Complainants wrote another letter on 13 December 2
extension of time they had been granted in terms of Rule 98 of the
..
:x: .
J)
ET Of-$
tf"•,) ACHPR
L
/4
,
African Cornrn1ss1on on
Human and Peoples' flights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibi lity
lapsed, requesting the Commission to suspend the Complaint until the former had
successfully exhausted local remedies.
24. The Complainants highlighted that they did not intend to withdraw the Complaint,
instead requesting that the Commission suspend the matter, a procedure that is
not catered for in the ROP 2020.
25. Since then, the Complainants have not made any strides or shown any interest in
prosecuting their Complaint before the Commission, nor have they given any
feedback or updates on their efforts in doing so.
26. The Commission notes that more than two years and seven months have lapsed
since the extension of time the Complainants had requested and committed to
submitting their Arguments and Evidence on Admissibility and Merits of this
Communication, which they did not do.
27 . In view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the Complainants have
not shown any interest in pursuing the present communication.
28. The Commission draws attention to its case law, in particular in communications
735/19 Residents of the Mau Forest Complex (represented by the Centre for
Comparative and International Law and the Institute for Human Rights and
Development in Africa) v The Republic of Kenya; 594/15 Mohammed Ramadan
Mahmoud Fayad Allah v. Arab Republic of Egypt; 612/16 Ahmed Mohammed Ali
Subaie v. Arab Republic of Egypt; 412/16 Ahmed Mohammed Ali Subaie v. Arab
Republic of Egypt. Arab Republic of Egypt; 412/12 Journal Echos du Nord v.
Republic of Gabon and communication 387/10 Kofi Yamagnane v. Togo, which
were also struck out for lack of diligent prosecution.
Decision of the African Commission
29. In view of the above , the Commission decides to strike out the present complaint
for want of diligent prosecution.
UMAN
.
•,.
()
~
o"°
Adopted at the 84th Ordinary Session of the African Commission,
from 21 to 30 July 2025.
<(1'
"';c·
~ i1
'
u.l
~
0
5 C:
,q.·R,cp.,~\'.
·
E ET oES
.,